|
I recently bought No End in Sight, and I think the game better models the central problem of modern infantry combat--crossing that "deadly ground" in the face of enemy opposition---than any other game I've played.
Squad leaders roll for activation points each turn, getting a couple of attempts to fight their squad before burning out (squad leaders accrue “stress” and eventually become “exhausted,” which prevents them from acting further in a turn). Other factors also accrue stress, such as taking casualties past a maximum allowance. I like how this keeps the game unpredictable---you're rarely sure of when the enemy's out of steam, or of when your own troops will be able to maneuver effectively.
Movement out of sight of the enemy, or in cover, is done in small, regular increments. Movement in sight of the enemy and in the open can only be conducted in “rushes”—unpredictable bursts of movement by your troops, which may trigger enemy reaction fire and lead to your men getting pinned down. Reaction fire is more than capable to halting your forward momentum, not through casualties (as is usual in most games), but through pinning and disorder.
Fire combat is simple, with only a handful of D6s rolled per combat. Fire mostly inflicts pinning, with casualties much less likely. You can also get stuck in short-range firefights (assaults), which are more lethal but allow the enemy to shoot, too.
In my test game, the two opposing forces moved up into contact. Then, the battle broke down into two firefights, each over control of different avenues of approach up the middle of the board. In each firefight, the two sides struggled to gain the upper hand, suffering a trickle of casualties. Throughout the game, enemy troops holding key pieces of terrain---overlooking alleys or streets---forced the other side to either take an alternate route or get stuck in. The game ended with too much stress built up for the opposing squad leaders—once too many permanent stress points build up (caused by excessive casualties), squad leaders are left without options. Tactically, it was a draw.
My initial thoughts about the game are very positive. It’s one of the few games I’ve played, maybe the only one, where a key phenomenon of modern warfare was reproduced: a single soldier, with an automatic weapon, can control a stretch of open ground such that the enemy cannot move across it without risk. More impressively, the game manages to do this without mass tabletop slaughter—he’s holding that stretch through suppressing fire and simple threat, not because he can kill 2 or 3 enemy figures every time he fires. The way that reaction fire and moving against the enemy work in the game are very cool. Getting a single enemy grunt on your flank can royally screw up your ability to maneuver---and if that grunt has a SAW, your position will probably become untenable.
The game has rules for vehicles, heavy weapons, and a thorough campaign section, but I haven’t tried those out yet.
Overall, I really liked the game and love the “friction” element of reaction fire and crossing that “dangerous ground”. (The game has some echoes of Crossfire, in that way.)
|
Log In 
